MINNEAPOLIS — In Minnesota, bong water can count as an illegal drug.
That decision from Minnesota’s Supreme Court on Thursday raises the threat of longer sentences for drug smokers in that state who fail to dump the water out of bong — a type of water pipe often used to smoke drugs
The court said a person can be prosecuted for a first-degree drug crime for 25 grams or more of bong water that tests positive for a controlled substance.
Lower courts had held that bong water is drug paraphernalia. Possession of that is a misdemeanor crime.
The case involved a woman whose bong had about 2½ tablespoons of liquid that tested positive for methamphetamine. A narcotics officer had testified that drug users sometimes keep bong water to drink or inject later.
Source
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Guilty plea entered in crash killing officer
Raymond E. Jamison Jr., the drunken driver who pleaded guilty Wednesday to causing the early-morning accident that killed a Buffalo police officer July 24, has been grief-stricken “from the day this happened,” his attorney said.
After Jamison, 22, of Fairlane Drive, Boston, pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide and misdemeanor drunken driving, attorney Andrew C. LoTempio said his client is cooperating with insurance companies and has begun alcoholism counseling at Erie County Medical Center.
LoTempio said he hopes Erie County Judge Michael F. Pietruszka imposes a “far lesser” prison term than the four years Jamison could get in the death of Officer Jose A. Colon.
Jamison rammed the off-duty officer’s SUV on the southbound Niagara Thruway at about 4 a. m. in a crash that also injured two of Jamison’s passengers.
After a 30-minute conference during which the judge refused to indicate his sentencing preferences, Jamison pleaded guilty to the two charges as well as to two counts of vehicular assault for the injuries to his passengers.
A 12-year police veteran, Colon, 39, was driving home to Orchard Park after a day working on the department’s Mobile Response Unit when Jamison slammed into his car from behind near the Clinton Street ramp. Colon was pronounced dead about nine hours later in ECMC. Two of Jamison’s passengers, Steven E. Pelc, 21, and Melissa Marshall, 19, required medical treatment.
Jamison remains free on bail pending his Jan. 21 sentencing.
Mark John Grisanti, the Colon family attorney, said that while Jamison allegedly is cooperating with insurance companies, a civil suit could be filed by the family.
Following the plea proceeding, LoTempio stressed that Jamison “has accepted full responsibility and he feels horrible” about what LoTempio described as an accident that might have occurred even if his client hadn’t been drunk.
Before Jamison was allowed to leave court, the judge warned him not to drive or drink pending his upcoming sentencing.
Source
After Jamison, 22, of Fairlane Drive, Boston, pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide and misdemeanor drunken driving, attorney Andrew C. LoTempio said his client is cooperating with insurance companies and has begun alcoholism counseling at Erie County Medical Center.
LoTempio said he hopes Erie County Judge Michael F. Pietruszka imposes a “far lesser” prison term than the four years Jamison could get in the death of Officer Jose A. Colon.
Jamison rammed the off-duty officer’s SUV on the southbound Niagara Thruway at about 4 a. m. in a crash that also injured two of Jamison’s passengers.
After a 30-minute conference during which the judge refused to indicate his sentencing preferences, Jamison pleaded guilty to the two charges as well as to two counts of vehicular assault for the injuries to his passengers.
A 12-year police veteran, Colon, 39, was driving home to Orchard Park after a day working on the department’s Mobile Response Unit when Jamison slammed into his car from behind near the Clinton Street ramp. Colon was pronounced dead about nine hours later in ECMC. Two of Jamison’s passengers, Steven E. Pelc, 21, and Melissa Marshall, 19, required medical treatment.
Jamison remains free on bail pending his Jan. 21 sentencing.
Mark John Grisanti, the Colon family attorney, said that while Jamison allegedly is cooperating with insurance companies, a civil suit could be filed by the family.
Following the plea proceeding, LoTempio stressed that Jamison “has accepted full responsibility and he feels horrible” about what LoTempio described as an accident that might have occurred even if his client hadn’t been drunk.
Before Jamison was allowed to leave court, the judge warned him not to drive or drink pending his upcoming sentencing.
Source
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Driver pleads guilty in death of off-duty officer
Raymond E. Jamison Jr., a Town of Boston construction worker, pleaded guilty today to criminally negligent homicide and drunk driving in the death of an off-duty Buffalo police officer on the Niagara Thruway early on July 24.
Officer Jose A. Colon's SUV was rammed from behind by Jamison about 4 a.m. on the southbound I-190, just before the Clinton Street ramp. The crash also injured two of Jamison's four passengers.
Erie County Judge Michael F. Pietruszka refused to give Jamison a sentencing commitment on his plea to single counts of criminally negligent homicide, misdemeanor drunken driving and two felony counts of vehicular assault for the injuries to his two passengers.
With no objection from Kelley A. Omel, chief of the district attorney's Vehicular Crimes Unit, the judge let Jamison remain free on $50,000 previously posted bail pending his Jan. 21 sentencing.
Jamison, 22, of Fairlane Drive, faces a possible prison term of up to four years. But defense attorney Andrew C. LoTempio said after the plea proceeding that he hopes the judge imposes a "far lesser" sentence.
LoTempio said Jamison, whose car was "totaled" in the fatal rear-end crash, "has accepted full responsibility and he feels horrible" about what happened.
Mark John Grisanti, the Colon family's attorney, also attended the plea proceeding and said that while insurance carriers are working out payments, a civil suit "could be" filed by the police officer's family.
Jamison is undergoing alcoholism counseling at the Erie County Medical Center. Today's plea was witnessed by his mother, brother and two younger relatives.
Source
Officer Jose A. Colon's SUV was rammed from behind by Jamison about 4 a.m. on the southbound I-190, just before the Clinton Street ramp. The crash also injured two of Jamison's four passengers.
Erie County Judge Michael F. Pietruszka refused to give Jamison a sentencing commitment on his plea to single counts of criminally negligent homicide, misdemeanor drunken driving and two felony counts of vehicular assault for the injuries to his two passengers.
With no objection from Kelley A. Omel, chief of the district attorney's Vehicular Crimes Unit, the judge let Jamison remain free on $50,000 previously posted bail pending his Jan. 21 sentencing.
Jamison, 22, of Fairlane Drive, faces a possible prison term of up to four years. But defense attorney Andrew C. LoTempio said after the plea proceeding that he hopes the judge imposes a "far lesser" sentence.
LoTempio said Jamison, whose car was "totaled" in the fatal rear-end crash, "has accepted full responsibility and he feels horrible" about what happened.
Mark John Grisanti, the Colon family's attorney, also attended the plea proceeding and said that while insurance carriers are working out payments, a civil suit "could be" filed by the police officer's family.
Jamison is undergoing alcoholism counseling at the Erie County Medical Center. Today's plea was witnessed by his mother, brother and two younger relatives.
Source
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sheriff pleads not guilty in court, battle brewing over whether he keeps job
LINCOLNTON — Lincoln County Sheriff Tim Daugherty made his first appearance in court Tuesday morning.
TV and newspaper reporters sat in the audience along with a few of Daugherty’s employees.
Daugherty shook the hand of one of the courtroom bailiffs and patted him on the back before the proceedings began.
“He’s a great man, a Christian man. He ain’t guilty of nothing,” Lt. Stanley Crowder said while sitting in the front row of the courtroom.
The first appearance was over in just a few minutes, with Daugherty pleading not guilty to the three charges he faces — two felony counts of obstruction of justice and a misdemeanor charge of giving a false report to law enforcement.
Reporters followed Daugherty down three flights of stairs in the courthouse before he took another flight down to the magistrate’s office.
Crowder, Daugherty’s public information officer, met with the media outside of the courthouse. The sheriff has no comment, Crowder said.
When asked if Daugherty was going back to work, Crowder said yes.
“He has no plans whatsoever to resign,” Crowder said.
Daugherty was headed back to work, according to Crowder.
Daugherty was represented by Andrew Banzhoff of Devereux & Banzhoff Attorneys at Law out of Asheville.
Daugherty was arrested Monday after a Lincoln County grand jury handed down indictments. The charges stem from the conviction of Daugherty’s chief deputy Barry Taylor.
Taylor was convicted of obstruction of justice Sept. 30 and fired a few days later for helping a Denver doctor avoid a possible DWI charge.
Evidence in Taylor’s trial made Assistant District Attorney Gwynn Radeker question the sheriff’s knowledge of Taylor’s actions the night of the 2007 incident.
Indictments say Daugherty instructed Taylor to let the doctor go and that the sheriff lied to State Bureau of Investigation officers when questioned about it.
Taylor received 18 months probation and 40 hours community service for the misdemeanor obstruction of justice conviction.
If convicted, Daugherty would probably get 12 to 16 months probation and no jail time, according to Radeker. The penalty could be years in prison for a person with a criminal history, he said.
Radeker said he did not know when the matter would go before a judge.
County Commission Chairman Alex Patton does not intend to wait for the trial to remove Daugherty from his position as sheriff.
Patton made his second call for Daugherty’s resignation during a press conference Monday.
Commissioners will meet with the county attorney 6:30 tonight at the Citizens Center to start a petition for removal.
A petition for removal can be created by the county attorney, district attorney or five registered voters, according to Eddie Caldwell, executive vice president with the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association.
The petition is then submitted to a Superior Court judge who would decide whether to remove or suspend the sheriff.
That process moves more quickly than criminal cases because state statues dictate petitions to be placed at the top of the court docket, Caldwell said.
“That court case is likely to move faster than the criminal indictment,” Caldwell said.
Because Daugherty is an elected official, he cannot be fired.
According to state statutes, a sheriff can be removed for neglect or refusal to perform the duties of his office; misconduct, corruption, extortion, conviction of a felony or intoxication.
If Daugherty is removed from office, the Democratic Party would have 30 days to present a replacement to the County Commission.
Source
TV and newspaper reporters sat in the audience along with a few of Daugherty’s employees.
Daugherty shook the hand of one of the courtroom bailiffs and patted him on the back before the proceedings began.
“He’s a great man, a Christian man. He ain’t guilty of nothing,” Lt. Stanley Crowder said while sitting in the front row of the courtroom.
The first appearance was over in just a few minutes, with Daugherty pleading not guilty to the three charges he faces — two felony counts of obstruction of justice and a misdemeanor charge of giving a false report to law enforcement.
Reporters followed Daugherty down three flights of stairs in the courthouse before he took another flight down to the magistrate’s office.
Crowder, Daugherty’s public information officer, met with the media outside of the courthouse. The sheriff has no comment, Crowder said.
When asked if Daugherty was going back to work, Crowder said yes.
“He has no plans whatsoever to resign,” Crowder said.
Daugherty was headed back to work, according to Crowder.
Daugherty was represented by Andrew Banzhoff of Devereux & Banzhoff Attorneys at Law out of Asheville.
Daugherty was arrested Monday after a Lincoln County grand jury handed down indictments. The charges stem from the conviction of Daugherty’s chief deputy Barry Taylor.
Taylor was convicted of obstruction of justice Sept. 30 and fired a few days later for helping a Denver doctor avoid a possible DWI charge.
Evidence in Taylor’s trial made Assistant District Attorney Gwynn Radeker question the sheriff’s knowledge of Taylor’s actions the night of the 2007 incident.
Indictments say Daugherty instructed Taylor to let the doctor go and that the sheriff lied to State Bureau of Investigation officers when questioned about it.
Taylor received 18 months probation and 40 hours community service for the misdemeanor obstruction of justice conviction.
If convicted, Daugherty would probably get 12 to 16 months probation and no jail time, according to Radeker. The penalty could be years in prison for a person with a criminal history, he said.
Radeker said he did not know when the matter would go before a judge.
County Commission Chairman Alex Patton does not intend to wait for the trial to remove Daugherty from his position as sheriff.
Patton made his second call for Daugherty’s resignation during a press conference Monday.
Commissioners will meet with the county attorney 6:30 tonight at the Citizens Center to start a petition for removal.
A petition for removal can be created by the county attorney, district attorney or five registered voters, according to Eddie Caldwell, executive vice president with the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association.
The petition is then submitted to a Superior Court judge who would decide whether to remove or suspend the sheriff.
That process moves more quickly than criminal cases because state statues dictate petitions to be placed at the top of the court docket, Caldwell said.
“That court case is likely to move faster than the criminal indictment,” Caldwell said.
Because Daugherty is an elected official, he cannot be fired.
According to state statutes, a sheriff can be removed for neglect or refusal to perform the duties of his office; misconduct, corruption, extortion, conviction of a felony or intoxication.
If Daugherty is removed from office, the Democratic Party would have 30 days to present a replacement to the County Commission.
Source
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
2 TEENS CHARGED IN HORRIFIC KILLINGS-ANYONE CHARGED NEEDS A NY CRIMINAL LAWYER
A woman and her son who was ten years old were murdered by two teenagers. According to authorities, the woman was stabbed repeatedly and the boy was hit over the head with a television set.
The Minneapolis teens were charged as adults with first degree murder. The two were identified as Stafon Edward Thompson, 17, and Brian Lee Flowers, 16, both of Minneapolis.They were charged with the deaths of Katricia Daniels, and Robert Shepard. The teens can receive a sentence of life in prison and no parole available.
Thompson and Flowers flipped on one another blaming the killings on each other. It appears that the murders knew the woman, Daniels, through her other son who is fifteen and resides in Chicago.
If you or a loved one has trouble with the law and is facing criminal charges, get a New York Criminal Lawyer to defend you. Hiring a NY Criminal Attorney can help you to avoid jail time.
That move can help you to avoid jail time.Police recovered two knives and a golf club in the Daniels' house that they believe were used in the killings. They also found a knife in a garbage can in the alley.
Freeman said it appeared that Daniels had welcomed the teens into her home when they first arrived June 11.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Attorney Sam’s Take: Arrested For Drug Possession In Boston – What Do You Do?
So, you were out last Saturday night in Boston, enjoying the ten minutes or so that it was not raining. You figure you will celebrate with the herb of your choice. After all, this is 2009 and you can just light up some marijuana you have in your pocket and toke away, you figure. So…why do you find you need a defense attorney come Monday?
The current drug laws, including those involving marijuana, can be somewhat confusing...on or off of campus
For example, passage of the so-called decriminalization of marijuana has created a certain amount of misunderstanding. While it is not actually criminal to be in possession of an ounce or under of pot, it is not exactly celebrated either. The marijuana can be taken from you under the statute and you may have to pay a civil fine.
On the other hand, the circumstances of the arrest can still bring you back into the spotlight of criminal prosecution. For example, if there are reasons to believe you may be sharing or selling the drug, you can still be prosecuted for either trafficking or possession with intent to sell. Further, if you are under age, there are other provisions in the statute that effect you.
The first thing you need to do if arrested (or preferably before) for drug possession is to know the playing field. For example, what are you being charged with? What intent are they alleging?
There are various levels, or classifications of drugs which carry with them different levels of severity of sentence. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C describes the various potential penalties. For example, first offense straight possession of a heroine, a Class A controlled substance can bring you two years of jail. Second and future offenses, naturally, get you more.
Generally, I find that the circumstances of an arrest are my clients’ biggest problem. It does not take very much for law enforcement to decide that, according to their investigation, your possession of a controlled substance is really for purposes of sale. Elements such as who you are with, the prior history of your location, how the drugs are packaged and what else you have in your possession are among the things officers will consider in making this determination.
For example, if you happen to have a bunch of twenty dollar bills adding up to hundreds or thousands of dollars, you are likely to win the prize of assumed intent. Items like cell phones, scales and the like can also be considered to be evidence of trafficking, or possession with intent to distribute.
The location of your possession can play a very special part in determining your potential sentence. For example, if you are in an area in which the police believe much drug trafficking occurs, you are more likely to be considered a drug dealer.
There is a very special type of location, however, that can bring you exposure to an extra criminal sentence.
This would be the “School Zone”.
Source
The current drug laws, including those involving marijuana, can be somewhat confusing...on or off of campus
For example, passage of the so-called decriminalization of marijuana has created a certain amount of misunderstanding. While it is not actually criminal to be in possession of an ounce or under of pot, it is not exactly celebrated either. The marijuana can be taken from you under the statute and you may have to pay a civil fine.
On the other hand, the circumstances of the arrest can still bring you back into the spotlight of criminal prosecution. For example, if there are reasons to believe you may be sharing or selling the drug, you can still be prosecuted for either trafficking or possession with intent to sell. Further, if you are under age, there are other provisions in the statute that effect you.
The first thing you need to do if arrested (or preferably before) for drug possession is to know the playing field. For example, what are you being charged with? What intent are they alleging?
There are various levels, or classifications of drugs which carry with them different levels of severity of sentence. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C describes the various potential penalties. For example, first offense straight possession of a heroine, a Class A controlled substance can bring you two years of jail. Second and future offenses, naturally, get you more.
Generally, I find that the circumstances of an arrest are my clients’ biggest problem. It does not take very much for law enforcement to decide that, according to their investigation, your possession of a controlled substance is really for purposes of sale. Elements such as who you are with, the prior history of your location, how the drugs are packaged and what else you have in your possession are among the things officers will consider in making this determination.
For example, if you happen to have a bunch of twenty dollar bills adding up to hundreds or thousands of dollars, you are likely to win the prize of assumed intent. Items like cell phones, scales and the like can also be considered to be evidence of trafficking, or possession with intent to distribute.
The location of your possession can play a very special part in determining your potential sentence. For example, if you are in an area in which the police believe much drug trafficking occurs, you are more likely to be considered a drug dealer.
There is a very special type of location, however, that can bring you exposure to an extra criminal sentence.
This would be the “School Zone”.
Source
Monday, September 28, 2009
Boston DUI Attorney Stephen L. Jones Fights Drunk Driving Charges Throughout Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts DUI attorney Stephen L. Jones is ready to fight your drunk driving charge in Barnstable, Berkshire, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, and Worcester counties.
Boston, Massachusetts DUI attorney Stephen L. Jones is a former prosecutor and is now a nationally recognized drunk driving attorney who has appeared on the Today Show, MSNBC, Chronicle, Inside Edition and the Discovery Channel to speak about criminal law. Boston, Massachusetts DUI / OUI attorney Stephen L. Jones has also defended several high-profile cases that have been covered on national and Boston news programs.
Boston, Massachusetts DUI / OUI attorney Stephen L. Jones has successfully defended more than 1,000 Massachusetts drunk driving cases. His law practice focuses on the defense of drunk driving charges and related matters. He is well-versed in both the science and law of drunk driving defense, and will use that knowledge to aggressively challenge chemical tests, field sobriety tests, and other evidence in a Massachusetts DUI case.
As the chair of the Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education seminars on drunk driving for 10 years, Boston, Massachusetts DUI / OUI attorney Stephen L. Jones is in great demand as a drunk driving defense speaker. He has spoken across the nation on subjects related to OUI/DUI and has lectured on the subject of courtroom testimony at the FBI Academy.
Source
Boston, Massachusetts DUI attorney Stephen L. Jones is a former prosecutor and is now a nationally recognized drunk driving attorney who has appeared on the Today Show, MSNBC, Chronicle, Inside Edition and the Discovery Channel to speak about criminal law. Boston, Massachusetts DUI / OUI attorney Stephen L. Jones has also defended several high-profile cases that have been covered on national and Boston news programs.
Boston, Massachusetts DUI / OUI attorney Stephen L. Jones has successfully defended more than 1,000 Massachusetts drunk driving cases. His law practice focuses on the defense of drunk driving charges and related matters. He is well-versed in both the science and law of drunk driving defense, and will use that knowledge to aggressively challenge chemical tests, field sobriety tests, and other evidence in a Massachusetts DUI case.
As the chair of the Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education seminars on drunk driving for 10 years, Boston, Massachusetts DUI / OUI attorney Stephen L. Jones is in great demand as a drunk driving defense speaker. He has spoken across the nation on subjects related to OUI/DUI and has lectured on the subject of courtroom testimony at the FBI Academy.
Source
Monday, September 7, 2009
Police say driver in sixth DUI had brandy in his lap
NEWBURYPORT - A Charlton man pleaded not guilty in Newburyport District Court yesterday to what was at least his 10th drunken-driving charge, after he almost hit another car while swerving across heavy traffic with a bottle of brandy between his legs, police said.
Jason W. Wetteland, 39, was held without bail, and his driver’s license, which had not been valid since 2003, was permanently revoked.
According to a police report, Wetteland had been exiting northbound Interstate 495 onto Route 110 in Amesbury about 7:30 p.m. Saturday when Amesbury police officer Carl LeSage noticed Wetteland’s Ford Explorer swerving.
Wetteland turned a hard right into the entrance of a gas station, slowed to nearly a stop, then turned a hard left back into traffic, causing several cars behind him to slam on their brakes, according to the report.
When LeSage pulled Wetteland’s car over, he saw a bottle of brandy between the man’s legs and observed that Wetteland “had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and his speech was slurred,’’ the report said.
When Officer Raymond Landry arrived to assist LeSage and searched Wetteland’s car, he retrieved a 12-pack of Bud Light beer on the passenger floorboard containing eight unopened cans and a half-full beer can, and the open bottle of Mr. Boston Blackberry Flavored Brandy, police said.
Wetteland told Landry that he had been driving to visit a friend in Salisbury. According to the report, he refused to submit to a sobriety test, saying, “I’m drunk, you know it, and I am not going to deny it.’’
When Landry asked Wetteland if he “thought it was a joke to drive drunk,’’ according to the report, Wetteland told him, “I’ve been doing this all along; this is what I do.’’
Wetteland was taken to the Essex County House of Correction in Middleton, where he had been held on $1 million cash bail until yesterday’s arraignment.
According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of drunken driving are repeat offenders, and drunk drivers with previous convictions have more than four times the risk of being in a fatal crash as other drunk drivers.
“Every couple of years, you come across someone with a horrible record like this, and why they’re still out, we don’t know,’’ said Amesbury Lieutenant Mark Gagnon. “This should get him some time off the road, because he doesn’t seem to get the message, despite the fact that he has no license.’’
In Massachusetts, Wetteland has had six drunken driving convictions, the first in 1988 and the last in 2001.
Beginning in 1991, his license was suspended for 10 years after he was convicted of drunken driving in Spencer. Between 1991 and 2001, when his license was reinstated, his record shows several other violations, including two speeding tickets in Massachusetts and two drunken driving arrests in Connecticut.
Wetteland’s additional license suspensions for those violations were served concurrently with his 10-year suspension, said Ann Dufresne, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Dufresne said that after Wetteland’s last conviction for drunken driving in 2001, he was only suspended for one year “because at that time the drunk driving laws were not as strict as they are today.’’
He was arrested at least one more time in Massachusetts, in Charlton in 2003 on drunken driving charges, but was found not guilty.
However, because he had refused to take a breath analysis test during that arrest, his license was suspended.
Dufresne said there was not much the Registry could have done to prevent his most recent violation.
“He chose to drive without a license, just like he chose to drink and drive,’’ she said.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant Essex District Attorney Nathaniel Sears. If convicted, Wetteland faces up to five years in state prison, with a minimum sentence of two years, according to Steve O’Connell, spokesman for the Essex district attorney.
Source
Jason W. Wetteland, 39, was held without bail, and his driver’s license, which had not been valid since 2003, was permanently revoked.
According to a police report, Wetteland had been exiting northbound Interstate 495 onto Route 110 in Amesbury about 7:30 p.m. Saturday when Amesbury police officer Carl LeSage noticed Wetteland’s Ford Explorer swerving.
Wetteland turned a hard right into the entrance of a gas station, slowed to nearly a stop, then turned a hard left back into traffic, causing several cars behind him to slam on their brakes, according to the report.
When LeSage pulled Wetteland’s car over, he saw a bottle of brandy between the man’s legs and observed that Wetteland “had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and his speech was slurred,’’ the report said.
When Officer Raymond Landry arrived to assist LeSage and searched Wetteland’s car, he retrieved a 12-pack of Bud Light beer on the passenger floorboard containing eight unopened cans and a half-full beer can, and the open bottle of Mr. Boston Blackberry Flavored Brandy, police said.
Wetteland told Landry that he had been driving to visit a friend in Salisbury. According to the report, he refused to submit to a sobriety test, saying, “I’m drunk, you know it, and I am not going to deny it.’’
When Landry asked Wetteland if he “thought it was a joke to drive drunk,’’ according to the report, Wetteland told him, “I’ve been doing this all along; this is what I do.’’
Wetteland was taken to the Essex County House of Correction in Middleton, where he had been held on $1 million cash bail until yesterday’s arraignment.
According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of drunken driving are repeat offenders, and drunk drivers with previous convictions have more than four times the risk of being in a fatal crash as other drunk drivers.
“Every couple of years, you come across someone with a horrible record like this, and why they’re still out, we don’t know,’’ said Amesbury Lieutenant Mark Gagnon. “This should get him some time off the road, because he doesn’t seem to get the message, despite the fact that he has no license.’’
In Massachusetts, Wetteland has had six drunken driving convictions, the first in 1988 and the last in 2001.
Beginning in 1991, his license was suspended for 10 years after he was convicted of drunken driving in Spencer. Between 1991 and 2001, when his license was reinstated, his record shows several other violations, including two speeding tickets in Massachusetts and two drunken driving arrests in Connecticut.
Wetteland’s additional license suspensions for those violations were served concurrently with his 10-year suspension, said Ann Dufresne, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Dufresne said that after Wetteland’s last conviction for drunken driving in 2001, he was only suspended for one year “because at that time the drunk driving laws were not as strict as they are today.’’
He was arrested at least one more time in Massachusetts, in Charlton in 2003 on drunken driving charges, but was found not guilty.
However, because he had refused to take a breath analysis test during that arrest, his license was suspended.
Dufresne said there was not much the Registry could have done to prevent his most recent violation.
“He chose to drive without a license, just like he chose to drink and drive,’’ she said.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant Essex District Attorney Nathaniel Sears. If convicted, Wetteland faces up to five years in state prison, with a minimum sentence of two years, according to Steve O’Connell, spokesman for the Essex district attorney.
Source
Monday, August 17, 2009
Driving License Boston MA
Driving license in the United States not only gives you rights and permissions to drive motor vehicle but also acts as personal identity card like the Social Security Number. It can be used as a form of identification for several purposes like opening bank accounts, traveling within the country, and as proof of legal age to buy alcohol and tobacco.
US federal government does not issue national driver licenses. All the 50 US states issue driving licenses separately and they can be used anywhere in America, Canada, and even abroad in certain countries. Every state has its own requirements and application procedures for driving license to the citizens as well as immigrants.
However, in all states you have to appear in a written test, road test and vision test. Some of the states allow foreign license as a proof of one's ability to operate a motor vehicle, thus if you have one they may not ask you to give a road test again. There are also different classes of licenses depending on the type of vehicle you will drive.
If you have not taken the US citizenship, you have to show the proof of your Immigration status for applying for a driving license from any state. This was added by the federal government after 9/11 as an extra security measures when obtaining a driving license. Driver licenses that do not meet these requirements are not accepted as legal identification to get entry into a federal building or to board an airplane in the country.
There is a US government website (www.dmv.org) that provides information on driving license. The site has all the details – how you can apply, what are the procedures and requirements for a driving license. It has a map of the US and by clicking on the state where you want to apply you can get the information and the procedures.
If you are planning to go to the US, besides American visa and driving license there are many things you should know about. Visit http://www.myusgreencard.com which specializes in filling in the forms of US green card lottery in a complete and accurate manner ensuring that your form for the lottery is complete in all respects. You can get information about social security card, diversity lottery, US citizenship, etc. at the portal.
Source
US federal government does not issue national driver licenses. All the 50 US states issue driving licenses separately and they can be used anywhere in America, Canada, and even abroad in certain countries. Every state has its own requirements and application procedures for driving license to the citizens as well as immigrants.
However, in all states you have to appear in a written test, road test and vision test. Some of the states allow foreign license as a proof of one's ability to operate a motor vehicle, thus if you have one they may not ask you to give a road test again. There are also different classes of licenses depending on the type of vehicle you will drive.
If you have not taken the US citizenship, you have to show the proof of your Immigration status for applying for a driving license from any state. This was added by the federal government after 9/11 as an extra security measures when obtaining a driving license. Driver licenses that do not meet these requirements are not accepted as legal identification to get entry into a federal building or to board an airplane in the country.
There is a US government website (www.dmv.org) that provides information on driving license. The site has all the details – how you can apply, what are the procedures and requirements for a driving license. It has a map of the US and by clicking on the state where you want to apply you can get the information and the procedures.
If you are planning to go to the US, besides American visa and driving license there are many things you should know about. Visit http://www.myusgreencard.com which specializes in filling in the forms of US green card lottery in a complete and accurate manner ensuring that your form for the lottery is complete in all respects. You can get information about social security card, diversity lottery, US citizenship, etc. at the portal.
Source
Monday, August 3, 2009
How drunk or high does someone have to be before he can be convicted of driving under the influence?
In most states, it's illegal to drive a car while "impaired" by the effects of alcohol or drugs (including prescription drugs). This means that there must be enough alcohol or drugs in the driver's body to prevent him from thinking clearly or driving safely. Many people reach this level well before they'd be considered "drunk" or "stoned." States vary as to the blood alcohol content (BAC) level that constitutes a DUI (driving under the influence) or DWI (driving while intoxicated).
On the other hand, these days it's hard to "win" a drunk driving case, assuming the police gathered some physical evidence against you (results of a breathalyzer, blood test, or urine test). And the punishments for DUI are pretty standard. If you were truly guilty, it's unlikely that a lawyer could get you any better of a deal or plea bargain than you can get for yourself.
Source
How can the police find out whether a driver is under the influence?
Police typically use three methods of determining whether a driver has had too much to be driving:- Observation. A police officer will pull you over if he notices that you are driving erratically -- swerving, speeding, failing to stop or even driving too slowly. Of course, you may have a good explanation for your driving (tiredness, for example), but an officer is unlikely to buy your story if he smells alcohol on your breath or notices slurred words or unsteady movements.
- Sobriety tests. If an officer suspects that you are under the influence, he will probably ask you to get out of the car and perform a series of balance and speech tests, such as standing on one leg, walking a straight line heel-to-toe or reciting a line of letters or numbers. The officer will look closely at your eyes, checking for pupil enlargement or constriction, which can be evidence of intoxication. If you fail these tests, the officer may arrest you or ask you to take a chemical test.
- Blood-alcohol level. The amount of alcohol in your body is understood by measuring the amount of alcohol in your blood. This measurement can be taken directly, by drawing a sample of your blood, or it can be calculated by applying a mathematical formula to the amount of alcohol in your breath or urine. Some states give you a choice of whether to take a breath, blood, or urine test -- others do not. If you test at or above the level of intoxication for your state (.08 to .10 % blood-alcohol concentration, depending on the state), you are presumed to be driving under the influence unless you can convince a judge or jury that your judgment was not impaired and you were not driving dangerously. Defense attorneys often question the validity of the conversion formula when driver's alcohol levels are based on breath or urine tests.
Do I have to take a blood, breath, or urine test if asked to do so by the police?
You may refuse to take a chemical test (blood, breath, or urine), but almost every state has a so-called "implied consent" law, and, under such laws, a refusal can result in suspension of your driver's license from anywhere between three to 12 months. (This is true even if you're eventually found not guilty of the current drunk driving charge.) Further, if your drunk driving case goes to trial, the prosecutor can tell the jury that you wouldn't take the test, which may lead the jury members to conclude that you refused because you were, in fact, drunk or stoned.If I'm stopping for driving under the influence, am I entitled to talk to an attorney before I decide which chemical test to take?
The answer depends on where you live. In California, for example, you don't have the right to speak with an attorney first. But some states, including Arizona, allow you to talk to your lawyer before you take a chemical test.If I'm stopped for driving under the influence, can a police officer ask me questions without reading me my rights?
Sometimes. The answer depends on whether or not you are in police custody -- that is, whether you are subject to the restraints common to a formal arrest. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have to provide Miranda warnings during roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a traffic stop. Thus, roadside questioning about your drinking, drug-taking, or performance on field sobriety tests does not constitute "custodial interrogation." However, once you are arrested -- or restrained by the police in a manner consistent with arrest -- you must be read your Miranda rights.I've been charged with drunk driving. Should I get a lawyer?
Defending against a charge of drunk driving is a tricky business. Defenders need to understand scientific and medical concepts, and must be able to question tough witnesses, including scientists and police officers. If you want to fight your drunk driving charge, you're well advised to hire an attorney who specializes in these types of cases.On the other hand, these days it's hard to "win" a drunk driving case, assuming the police gathered some physical evidence against you (results of a breathalyzer, blood test, or urine test). And the punishments for DUI are pretty standard. If you were truly guilty, it's unlikely that a lawyer could get you any better of a deal or plea bargain than you can get for yourself.
I was pulled over at a roadblock and asked to wait and answer a police officer's questions. Is this legal?
Yes, as long as the police use a neutral policy when stopping cars (such as stopping all cars or stopping every third car) and they minimize any inconvenience to you and the other drivers. The police can't single out your car at a roadblock unless they have good reason to believe that you've broken the law.Source
Monday, July 6, 2009
A Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Discusses Student Arrests And The Resulting Effects On A Student’s Future
As promised, our weekly "Attorney Sam's Take" discussion completes our examination of how involvement in the criminal justice system effects students.
We have discussed how, beyond the obvious, the arrest of a juvenile student in Massachusetts can seriously effect that student’s future plans. We have also mentioned how the earliest consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney is vital in order to best attempt to prevent, or at least minimize, damage.
Of course, not all students are juveniles. Some are already adults. There are a few big differences. Remember how I wrote about the Juvenile System’s concerns being primarily rehabilitative? Well, such is not the case with adults. Further, while a juvenile’s prior record is often disregarded…no such luck for the adult.
The result of these differences?
Harsher realities.
Let’s take an example.
Last Thursday, 18-year-old Kyle R. (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) had a bit of trouble with the Taunton police. It seems he is being accused of driving drunk (aka OUI). Well, maybe a little more. He also faces charges of driving so as to endanger, carrying a dangerous weapon, (a spring-loaded folding knife) and violating the terms of a juvenile operator's driving license.
“What brought the lad to the attention of the law?”, you ask.
Well, the police say it was his driving his car into a speed limit sign and a fire hydrant just after 1:00 a.m.
We have discussed how, beyond the obvious, the arrest of a juvenile student in Massachusetts can seriously effect that student’s future plans. We have also mentioned how the earliest consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney is vital in order to best attempt to prevent, or at least minimize, damage.
Of course, not all students are juveniles. Some are already adults. There are a few big differences. Remember how I wrote about the Juvenile System’s concerns being primarily rehabilitative? Well, such is not the case with adults. Further, while a juvenile’s prior record is often disregarded…no such luck for the adult.
The result of these differences?
Harsher realities.
Let’s take an example.
Last Thursday, 18-year-old Kyle R. (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) had a bit of trouble with the Taunton police. It seems he is being accused of driving drunk (aka OUI). Well, maybe a little more. He also faces charges of driving so as to endanger, carrying a dangerous weapon, (a spring-loaded folding knife) and violating the terms of a juvenile operator's driving license.
“What brought the lad to the attention of the law?”, you ask.
Well, the police say it was his driving his car into a speed limit sign and a fire hydrant just after 1:00 a.m.
Now, we know that The Defendant, now an adult in terms of being prosecuted, is in trouble...as any person so charged would be.
But, let’s move him from Taunton and place him right in one of the many educational institutions in the Boston area. Of course, where we put his automobile accident will effect things right off.
If the accident took place on campus, the results to his status on campus would absolutely be effected. There would be some kind of hearing at the school and, very likely, he would be told he could not be on campus anymore because of the threat he presents to the school community. You see, schools tend to take things like drunk driving, illegal driving and the carrying of weapons quite seriously…especially when these things are done on the actual campus.
In other words, suspension or even expulsion could be the result even long before the criminal justice system has determined guilt or innocence. This is because, in the school setting, the accused does not possess as many rights as he does in the criminal justice system. Sometimes, the school will wait to see what the courts do. Often, they do not. In cases where a school does wait, then the determination in court will almost dictate what the school will do.
Keep in mind that, like other such entities, schools do not like to get sued. Therefore, the omnipresent concern we often hear from law enforcement, “What if he goes out and kills somebody?”, is also alive and well in the school administration.
But, there is more to be worried about if you are the Defendant and a student, isn’t there?
The Defendant is an adult now. It will be harder to seal this record and, as you know if you are a regular reader to this daily blog, expunging the record is simply not going to happen. If convicted, the Defendant will have to wait years before being able to even try to seal his record. Yes, many more years than he has before applying to graduate schools and/or his first employment.
In fact, any future plans he has will now have to be adjusted for the fact that he has the criminal conviction(s). This will include continuing his education, military service and most places of employment. It will also have to be dealt with, should he get past the continuing education issue, when facing any licensing boards that might be necessary in a chosen profession, such as law, medicine, accounting and the like, not to mention any job that requires a security clearance.
Again, if the Defendant were a juvenile, this record would not come up so easily and would not have to be addressed in all applications because of protections we give to juveniles. Part of that protection is that, except in certain circumstances (such as homicides), the finding against a juvenile is “delinquency”, not “guilty”. That will change the answer to questions like “have you ever been convicted of a crime.”
Many of the same concerns that we examined in Part One of this Attorney Sam’s Take discussion involving juveniles are even greater in terms of a student who is not a juvenile.
For example, let’s take the example of a student who is convicted of a sex offense. While even a juvenile may be forced to register with the Sex Offender Registry, such registration is not always the result. However, for an adult convicted of a sex crime, registration is an absolute reality, the only question being what level.
Other ramifications are greater for the adult student than for the juvenile. For example, guilty findings for adults also effect actions by other agencies from national agencies controlling immigration to more local agencies such as the Department of Motor Vehicles. Clearly, in this matter, should convictions result, there will be a loss of license for a certain time.
There is one final difference between the effect on an adult student as opposed to that of a juvenile student that I need to address. Namely, jurisdiction of the legal body which oversees the Defendant.
For example, the worst the Justice System is likely to find against the juvenile is a finding of “Delinquency”, as noted above, and any resulting probationary or Department of Youth Services oversight of the Defendant ends when he is no longer a juvenile.
This is not the case with the adult. The adult’s probation will extend for as long as the court says it will extend. While a juvenile must be released from DYS custody upon becoming an adult, the sentenced adult will have to serve whatever term the court has imposed.
Therefore, the more direct gifts of conviction are longer lasting and can be more pervasive for the adult. For example, the juvenile offender who attains adulthood no longer has to consult a probation officer before applying to and attending schools (whether in or out of state). Not so with the adult offender.
In any event, the fact that a defendant is a student is not often a huge help in facing criminal justice anymore. While court's like to see a defendant with a future (who will hopefully not become a repeat offender), the addage of "Boys will be boys" is not longer an active principle in the criminal justice system.
Of course, every case is different to some degree, and it is impossible to render an exhaustive treatise on the subject in this short blog. The advice, however, remains the same.
If you or a loved one find themselves in the wrong end of the government’s finger of blame, it is vital that you consult an experienced defense attorney to advise as to options from the onset. That way, as you are driven through the myriad of corridors of the criminal justice maze, you can best make informed decisions, be defendant and actually have a road map.
Source
But, let’s move him from Taunton and place him right in one of the many educational institutions in the Boston area. Of course, where we put his automobile accident will effect things right off.
If the accident took place on campus, the results to his status on campus would absolutely be effected. There would be some kind of hearing at the school and, very likely, he would be told he could not be on campus anymore because of the threat he presents to the school community. You see, schools tend to take things like drunk driving, illegal driving and the carrying of weapons quite seriously…especially when these things are done on the actual campus.
In other words, suspension or even expulsion could be the result even long before the criminal justice system has determined guilt or innocence. This is because, in the school setting, the accused does not possess as many rights as he does in the criminal justice system. Sometimes, the school will wait to see what the courts do. Often, they do not. In cases where a school does wait, then the determination in court will almost dictate what the school will do.
Keep in mind that, like other such entities, schools do not like to get sued. Therefore, the omnipresent concern we often hear from law enforcement, “What if he goes out and kills somebody?”, is also alive and well in the school administration.
But, there is more to be worried about if you are the Defendant and a student, isn’t there?
The Defendant is an adult now. It will be harder to seal this record and, as you know if you are a regular reader to this daily blog, expunging the record is simply not going to happen. If convicted, the Defendant will have to wait years before being able to even try to seal his record. Yes, many more years than he has before applying to graduate schools and/or his first employment.
In fact, any future plans he has will now have to be adjusted for the fact that he has the criminal conviction(s). This will include continuing his education, military service and most places of employment. It will also have to be dealt with, should he get past the continuing education issue, when facing any licensing boards that might be necessary in a chosen profession, such as law, medicine, accounting and the like, not to mention any job that requires a security clearance.
Again, if the Defendant were a juvenile, this record would not come up so easily and would not have to be addressed in all applications because of protections we give to juveniles. Part of that protection is that, except in certain circumstances (such as homicides), the finding against a juvenile is “delinquency”, not “guilty”. That will change the answer to questions like “have you ever been convicted of a crime.”
Many of the same concerns that we examined in Part One of this Attorney Sam’s Take discussion involving juveniles are even greater in terms of a student who is not a juvenile.
For example, let’s take the example of a student who is convicted of a sex offense. While even a juvenile may be forced to register with the Sex Offender Registry, such registration is not always the result. However, for an adult convicted of a sex crime, registration is an absolute reality, the only question being what level.
Other ramifications are greater for the adult student than for the juvenile. For example, guilty findings for adults also effect actions by other agencies from national agencies controlling immigration to more local agencies such as the Department of Motor Vehicles. Clearly, in this matter, should convictions result, there will be a loss of license for a certain time.
There is one final difference between the effect on an adult student as opposed to that of a juvenile student that I need to address. Namely, jurisdiction of the legal body which oversees the Defendant.
For example, the worst the Justice System is likely to find against the juvenile is a finding of “Delinquency”, as noted above, and any resulting probationary or Department of Youth Services oversight of the Defendant ends when he is no longer a juvenile.
This is not the case with the adult. The adult’s probation will extend for as long as the court says it will extend. While a juvenile must be released from DYS custody upon becoming an adult, the sentenced adult will have to serve whatever term the court has imposed.
Therefore, the more direct gifts of conviction are longer lasting and can be more pervasive for the adult. For example, the juvenile offender who attains adulthood no longer has to consult a probation officer before applying to and attending schools (whether in or out of state). Not so with the adult offender.
In any event, the fact that a defendant is a student is not often a huge help in facing criminal justice anymore. While court's like to see a defendant with a future (who will hopefully not become a repeat offender), the addage of "Boys will be boys" is not longer an active principle in the criminal justice system.
Of course, every case is different to some degree, and it is impossible to render an exhaustive treatise on the subject in this short blog. The advice, however, remains the same.
If you or a loved one find themselves in the wrong end of the government’s finger of blame, it is vital that you consult an experienced defense attorney to advise as to options from the onset. That way, as you are driven through the myriad of corridors of the criminal justice maze, you can best make informed decisions, be defendant and actually have a road map.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)